Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 119 posts

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#11

Post by simonh »

lugg wrote: post #6
maehwasu wrote: post #2

So "feudalism" = "things I think are bad?" The gig economy has many, many downsides, but those downsides don't share much at all in common with feudalism, even by analogy. If we let all words deteriorate to mean simply "good" or "bad" (with gradations of good or badness), we're barely communicating.

No, linked in article: > Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon claimed that independent contracting amounts to “corporations trying to oppress workers.” He continued with, “When you hear about folks talking about the new economy, the gig economy, and the innovation economy, it’s fucking feudalism, all over again.” I think if you take a look over the wiki page [1], he's probably talking about the similarity between classes.…

It's still got nothing to do with actual feudalism, except that it's also 'bad'. Except for those people who like working in the gig economy and for whom it works very well.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#12

Post by maehwasu »

lugg wrote: post #6
maehwasu wrote: post #2

So "feudalism" = "things I think are bad?" The gig economy has many, many downsides, but those downsides don't share much at all in common with feudalism, even by analogy. If we let all words deteriorate to mean simply "good" or "bad" (with gradations of good or badness), we're barely communicating.

No, linked in article: > Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon claimed that independent contracting amounts to “corporations trying to oppress workers.” He continued with, “When you hear about folks talking about the new economy, the gig economy, and the innovation economy, it’s fucking feudalism, all over again.” I think if you take a look over the wiki page [1], he's probably talking about the similarity between classes.…

"Corporations oppressing workers", while being a very bad thing that I am very against, has almost nothing to do with feudalism, even by structural analogy.

As an example of something that would be apropos, Industrial Revolution working conditions and employer/employee dynamics would be far better analogies, although obviously imperfect themselves.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#13

Post by C1sc0cat »

neilwilson wrote: post #8

The way to reshape labour laws is to offer an alternative job defining the socially minimum acceptable job in a local area. Business then has to compete with that to attract labour. No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. That is also has the advantage of being a geographically targeted federal automatic stabiliser that operates far more effectively than interest rate targeting via bank lending…

No what you really need is federal binding minimum standards for Annual leave (4 weeks ) and Sick pay and minimum wage.

Repeal all the right to work laws and massively reduce the ability of employers to use non compeats (us CA as a model here I think)

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#14

Post by justAnotherNET »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #13
neilwilson wrote: post #8

The way to reshape labour laws is to offer an alternative job defining the socially minimum acceptable job in a local area. Business then has to compete with that to attract labour. No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. That is also has the advantage of being a geographically targeted federal automatic stabiliser that operates far more effectively than interest rate targeting via bank lending…

No what you really need is federal binding minimum standards for Annual leave (4 weeks ) and Sick pay and minimum wage. Repeal all the right to work laws and massively reduce the ability of employers to use non compeats (us CA as a model here I think)

Then you end up with a situation like France where incompetent employees are hard to fire. No thanks. If I can hire you at will, I can fire you at will. Anything less than that crosses into weird entitlement areas.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#16

Post by me_me_me »

neilwilson wrote: post #8

The way to reshape labour laws is to offer an alternative job defining the socially minimum acceptable job in a local area. Business then has to compete with that to attract labour. No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. That is also has the advantage of being a geographically targeted federal automatic stabiliser that operates far more effectively than interest rate targeting via bank lending…

>>Business then has to compete with that to attract labour. Except the fact that they don't, when speaking about low end jobs/seasonal occupations.

>>Simple competition sorts it out. Except the fact that businesses eroded work stability and security to shift power dynamic of employer employee massively in employer favor (again largely in case of low end jobs, though (was it) H1-B abuse exploits white collar workers). So employees are desperate to find employment and afraid to loose their current. That really kills any 'wage competition' and is a run to the bottom.

"But the rate of pay increase still was markedly less than historical relationships with labor market conditions would have predicted. Atypical restraint on compensation increases has been evident for a few years now and appears to be mainly the consequence of greater worker insecurity." by Alan Greenspan [0]

This whole idea of 'market will correct itself out' works great on paper, it just doesn't work in reality when you insert people into equation.

[0] https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/1997/february/te...

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#17

Post by BaronSamedi »

maehwasu wrote: post #2

So "feudalism" = "things I think are bad?" The gig economy has many, many downsides, but those downsides don't share much at all in common with feudalism, even by analogy. If we let all words deteriorate to mean simply "good" or "bad" (with gradations of good or badness), we're barely communicating.

We could even take an additional step on the path of honest communication and instead of "good" and "bad", say "things I like" and "things I dislike".

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#18

Post by js8 »

maehwasu wrote: post #2

So "feudalism" = "things I think are bad?" The gig economy has many, many downsides, but those downsides don't share much at all in common with feudalism, even by analogy. If we let all words deteriorate to mean simply "good" or "bad" (with gradations of good or badness), we're barely communicating.

I see analogy between capitalism and feudalism in how some people defend rich founders and owners of private companies.

In feudalism, it was common to ascribe the collective success of a nation (or a smaller, land-owning group of people in a given region) to a single individual, the feudal lord. He had the ultimate (and hereditary) authority over the operations of the group, by virtue of successfully coordinating the defense of the group against external threats.

In modern (19th to 21st century) private companies, there is a similar dynamic. There is founder, who is ascribed unlimited power within the domain of his private company, just by the virtue of coordinating its expansion. (He "deserves it" because he "took the risks".) And this power is hereditary - he can decide to pass the ownership of the company to his own descendants.

Sure, the powers of modern capital owners over lives of people are much smaller than in feudalism. But the arguments used to justify the power of capital owners over the operations (and profit distribution) in the company are in principle the same as those used to defend feudal lordship.

In the political domain, humans eventually wisened up and decided that feudal lords should be replaced with democratic republic, because success of a nation is a collective effort, and so the decision making should also be done collectively.

I think this will eventually happen to founders in capitalism too.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#19

Post by mcrocop309 »

lugg wrote: post #3

Good. People forget the past all too easily. It took a lot to get us the protections we have today. Giving them up so easily is a mistake. For those thinking this is overreach and stifling innovation you need to look back at history and realise the same thing could be said about many commonplace workers rights that you take for granted now.

'Protections' have, throughout history, negatively impacted the workers. Minimum wage laws, which artifically inflated the cost of low skill labour, resulted in a drastic drop in teenagers being hired - with black teenagers being disproportionately affected. Americans with Disabilities Act, which forced employers to accomodate people with disabilities if they hire them, resulted in less employment for that group. Unions have resulted in MILLIONS of manufacturing jobs leaving the country. And things like this are just going to usher in automation at a faster rate.

California is, yet again, placing policies into place that will further tank their economy while, yet again, thinking its doing the right thing and happy because they can act morally superior.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#20

Post by narag »

simonh wrote: post #11
lugg wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, linked in article: > Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon claimed that independent contracting amounts to “corporations trying to oppress workers.” He continued with, “When you hear about folks talking about the new economy, the gig economy, and the innovation economy, it’s fucking feudalism, all over again.” I think if you take a look over the wiki page [1], he's probably talking about the similarity between classes.…

It's still got nothing to do with actual feudalism, except that it's also 'bad'. Except for those people who like working in the gig economy and for whom it works very well.

It's still got nothing to do with actual feudalism...

Yes it has. Feudalism was that exactly: all society, from bottom to top was based on individual asymetrical pacts between two parts, the vassal and the lord. This kind of relation existed between peasants and lords and between lesser and greater lords.

Post reply on HN